G.R. No. L-44993 May 29, 1987
Eriberto H. Decena, petitioner, vs. The Administrator, Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (formerly Philippine Veterans Administration) and Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eriberto H. Decena, a disabled WWII veteran, was granted a disability life pension under Republic Act No. 65 . Subsequent laws increased this pension: R.A. No. 1920 raised it to P100 monthly, and R.A. No. 5753 later increased it to P200 plus a living allowance for dependents. However, respondents deducted P19 monthly from Decena’s pension, representing U.S. Veterans Administration compensation, pursuant to a PVAO regulation later declared void by the Supreme Court in Del Mar v. Philippine Veterans Administration. Consequently, Decena received reduced amounts even after the statutory increases.
Decena demanded payment of the differential pension arrears. Respondents acknowledged the entitlement but, in a 1977 Manifestation, proposed computing back pensions only from the dates corresponding appropriations were made effective (July 1, 1963, for R.A. No. 1920 and January 1972 for R.A. No. 5753 ), not from the laws’ effectivity dates. Decena insisted computation should run from the approval of his pension (1957) and the effectivity of R.A. No. 5753 (1969), leading to this mandamus suit to compel payment.

ISSUE

The sole issue is the proper reckoning period for computing the differential disability pension benefits due to the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Decena, ordering payment computed from the effectivity dates of the amendatory laws. The legal logic is anchored on the vesting of a statutory right. The Court held that the petitioner’s right to the increased pension vested immediately upon the enactment of R.A. No. 1920 and R.A. No. 5753 . The absence of an immediate appropriation did not negate the existence of this claim; it merely suspended its implementation pending the availability of funds. The appropriation acts themselves did not delimit the period of entitlement but merely provided funds pursuant to the substantive laws.
The Court found precedent in Board of Administrators, PVA v. Bautista, which awarded differential pensions from the effectivity dates of the same laws. It rejected the Administrator’s position, noting that substantial annual appropriations had been made for veterans’ pensions and that the PVAO had sufficient time to budget for such claims. Since Decena’s claim was minimal relative to the allocations and respondents had already been paying the adjusted rate since March 1977, the Court ordered immediate payment. The differential was computed at P38 monthly from August 5, 1957, to June 20, 1969, and P138 monthly from June 21, 1969, to February 1977, with the dependent’s allowance effective from the application’s approval date.